Kim Dotcom unveils “Me.ga” domain, mega plan to fool law enforcement

Kim Dotcom last night announced the domain for his new file sharing service—Me.ga—and details of his plan to evade shutdown attempts from law enforcement. Me.ga is reportedly scheduled to launch on January 20, 2013, the one-year anniversary of Dotcom's arrest on copyright infringement charges and the shutdown of Megaupload.

We've already reported Dotcom's plan to launch a new, encrypted cyberlocker service. What's new is the Me.ga domain name, which today is redirecting to a site describing how the new service will work. Here's what Dotcom is promising:

Easy privacy: In the past, securely storing and transferring confidential information required the installation of dedicated software. The new Mega encrypts and decrypts your data transparently in your browser, on the fly. You hold the keys to what you store in the cloud, not us.

Online Mega Manager: Before, you had to install the Mega Manager on every computer you used Megaupload from. Now, high-speed parallel batch uploading and downloading with resume capability are integral parts of the Mega website.

Live global cloud file system: Before, you had to create and update file folders manually. Now, you have a true cloud file system at your fingertips, including cross-account folder sharing for easy online collaboration. You can even access your cloud drive as a file system mount or drive letter!

Multi-centric data warehousing: Before, we operated only a handful of storage nodes located in expensive premium data centers. Now, thanks to encryption, we can connect a large number of hosting partners around the world without worrying about privacy breaches. Our servers will be closer to our customers."

Dotcom's new site is still looking for hosting services, which must be outside the US because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Dotcom wants Linux-based servers with "At least 20TB of disk space, quality RAID controller, at least 4GB of RAM, at least 1Gbps uplink (2Gbps preferred)." On Twitter, Dotcom said he wants 60 "state-of-the-art portal servers" for launch.

Mega is promising an API in the hopes of building a "thriving ecosystem" of third-party applications that can work on the service. And while Mega says it has "sufficient funds" to launch, it is looking for investors so it can "provide Mega free of charge for as long as possible."

The site was overloaded quickly when it went live last night, Dotcom wrote on Twitter. "Millions of users hitting at once," Dotcom wrote. "I'm delighted by the interest. But servers can't handle it. The new Mega will. WOW!!!"

Dotcom, who is also planning a "Megabox" cloud music service, is awaiting a ruling on whether he will be extradited from New Zealand to the US.

84 Reader Comments

Hopefully he can find a country to host from that will actually obey the law and not the copyright industry.

The Pirate Bay hosts no infringing content of any kind, but that doesn't stop the stooge brigades from raiding their servers every couple of months. So it doesn't take much more than absolutely nothing in some countries.

Except they don't do encryption. They don't even get basic security right a lot of the time. If it weren't for the very high likelihood this service will just get ripped down in another questionably-legal raid while Chris Dodd cheers from his living room, I'd be considering evaluating it for offsite backups. However, any time Dotcom puts hands on something, you can pretty much guess the outcome in advance.

Now, if this new service were to open the code used to do all the magic they're claiming, so anyone could fire up a similar service and frustrate the content goons, that'd be some real fun.

After watching all the back and forth earlier I was pretty much on the fence with this whole Megaupoad thing. Having now seen how much RIAA/MPAA's money influences the US government and the colossal miscarriage of justice that F-up resulted in, I'm kinda rooting for the guy despite myself.

Are hosting providers, no matter where they might be located, really going to be willing to do business with this creature? He'd have been smarter (yes, that's a relative term) to keep it under wraps at least until he had services arranged. If I were a provider, I wouldn't host this guy's grocery list, let alone an operation like MU. Err, mg.

Not every company licks the US's and US entertainment industry's boots. I'm sure Kim Dotcom will find hosting providers willing to host anything that that their jurisdiction's laws allow.

What happens if you upload infringing content to DropBox? Do the owners get arrested also?

They will eventually. I don't get why people will openly store files that can potentially get then into legal trouble on external servers belonging to strangers. Haven't these people ever heard of setting up their own local file server?

I bet there were a lot of dark room meetings and frustration about how "this guy just does not get it" or "the bast*rd just wont die".

Anything that hurts the MAFIAA (or gives them a bad nights rest) while also promising to help the artists gets all our thumbs up here at MF.Kick their ass Kim, and don't stop kicking it for a looong time!

What happens if you upload infringing content to DropBox? Do the owners get arrested also?

They will eventually. I don't get why people will openly store files that can potentially get then into legal trouble on external servers belonging to strangers. Haven't these people ever heard of setting up their own local file server?

DB does have it's uses... don't totally knock it.

For example, when I bought my mobile phone I got 50gb free dropbox storage for 2 year, what do I use it for? Mysql backups, picture backups from my mobile and common programs that I frequently use when setting up new computers.

We do have some sensitive files as well, but I up those in an encrypted format

I'm not quite sure why Kim Dotcom is getting so much hate in these comments.. sure, he doesn't seem like a guy I'd like to hang with, but MegaUpload, as reported in ALL the Ars stories, had one of the best enforced copyright content take-down policies of any of the digital locker sites. People will always find a way to use an legitimate product illegitimately, but again I fail to see how this condemns Dotcom and all his future business ventures.

I agree with a commenter above, this sounds a little like Dropbox, but with some new twists that could make it a serious contender in cloud storage. The file share and mapping of drives sounds the most awesome to me. It could be that Dotcom is trying to make a legitimate product, and using words like "collaboration" leads me to believe he's hoping to get a more reputable crowd using his service (businesses, techies with LEGIT cloud storage needs, etc).

I'm not gonna lie, when I thought of Megaupload, I thought of a place that pirates put content they didn't want to torrent.. but MegaUpload is gone. Dotcom is still here, and at his core, he isn't a criminal, he's a business person, albeit an eccentric one. Megaupload was founded in 2005, which is ancient in technology terms. The whole idea of dropping files to an online site where any anonymous user can get to them through a link is an antiquated cloud storage model. I think Dotcom knows this and wants to produce a better product that is more attractive to legitimate users. It seems like they have a solid foundation to build a powerful cloud storage platform.

Sure, there are going to be those that use this service for uses that run afoul of US copyright law.

But it's had to feel bad about it when US copyright law no longer strikes a fair balance between content producers and consumers. The real loosers here are not the copyright industry but the United States as the citizens loose respect for the law as it no longer reflects shared cultural values and social norms. The same can be said for draconian prohibitionist drug laws and the attending erosion of civil rights that have ensued.

Dotcom's new site is still looking for hosting services, which must be outside the US because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Why?

Because the DMCA, as enforced, is titled in favor of copyright holders and not users. We've seen time and time again that content hosters (youtube, etc.) take down content in response to take-down requests from copyright holders even if the content in question does not violate copyright. The content hosters do this to guarantee their safety under the DMCA's safe-harbor provision. And in practice, the copyright holders face no penalty for issuing false take-down requests. None of this is helpful to users of file-sharing sites and user-generated content sites.

Easy privacy: In the past, securely storing and transferring confidential information required the installation of dedicated software. The new Mega encrypts and decrypts your data transparently in your browser, on the fly. You hold the keys to what you store in the cloud, not us.

Hmmm. This makes it sound like everything that is uploaded will require encryption, and Mega will not keep track of the keys/passwords itself. Rather, it will be up to the user to hold and spread the keys/passwords to other users so that they can download data. I'm wondering if this affords any more legal protection. It seems to shift the responsibility (and perhaps the punishment) for sharing copyrighted content to the user, rather than the service itself.

I agree that the takedown of Megaupload was not done appropriately; and I acknowlede that there are many legitamate uses for data locker services. However, this seems very clearly to be embracing pirate users.

Were I looking for a service to backup my own legitamate personal or business files, or to do any sharing of such files, I would not even consider any offering from Mr. Dotcom.

Call me cynical, but I'd wager a fair bit of money that the vast majority of files found on services like this would be within the copyright of what almost anyone would consider acceptable (say, 20 years), and that complaints about copyright overreach (which is a very real phenomena) mostly harbor around resentment for the difficulty in pirating such materials rather than any deep concern that 70 year old works are not being put in the public domain.

In other words, I suspect most complaints are that people are having difficulty pirating recent materials for free. The rest of the concerns (lack of money to artists, unreasonable copyright extensions, etc.) are, for most (but not all), simply a story that people tell themselves in order to feel that they're "not a bad person" for pirating other people's work.

It's not the piracy that drives me crazy - it's the "I'm not stealing!" whining that accompanies it...

The new Mega encrypts and decrypts your data transparently in your browser, on the fly. You hold the keys to what you store in the cloud, not us.

A sensible though more expensive thing to do.

deas187 wrote:

i thought in-browser encryption was similar to the Holy Grail?

Eh? No, it's not a big deal at all. Lots of other services (though more obscure) already do this, a browser can handle it just fine. Services like StartSSL will actually do in-browser key generation for you for that matter, although for most certs I suspect people submit a CSR instead. While it won't be as efficient or fast as an entirely native solution (or the equivalent, like a plug-in that calls OpenSSL or whatever), on modern systems it doesn't matter at all for a single user, particularly at the data rates we're talking about (link limited).

As I said though it's more expensive server-side. One way a service can keep costs down is to perform de-duplication. Odds are that many people will be storing files that are significantly the same, which means with access to the file contents the service can automatically store a single copy, then a bunch of pointers to that copy. Encryption renders that ineffective. On the other hand with storage costs continuing to plummet maybe it's now a lot more feasible to handle, it's an attractive feature for users, and it certainly will prevent a repeat of the Megaupload case. If everything is encrypted client-side then it simply is impossible for the company to know the contents of any given file, and seizing the servers won't be of any value on its own either. Only by going after users directly, the ones with the keys and the ones ultimately responsible, can authorities deal with any particular set of data.

Ironically, the actions of the industry may end up being a textbook example of winning a battle but losing the war. When they were dealing with Megaupload, they had a service that was very popular and thus centralized and had a strong capability to deal with copyright infringement. They took that down, but the result has been a far more decentralized and diverse set of services, and now the introduction of encryption that will make it impossible for hosting companies to exercise the same type of control even if they wanted to. It seems like a major opportunity was missed for effective cooperation. By forcing the the landscape out of its previous metastable state, the content industry has caused the evolution of a new generation that will be dramatically more difficult to handle. They made what otherwise would have been more effort then it was worth beyond a tiny number of people worth it to a lot of people.

When they were dealing with Megaupload, they had a service that was very popular and thus centralized and had a strong capability to deal with copyright infringement.

Except it was screamingly clear that Megaupload prospered by adhering to what they felt was the absolutely least compliance they could get away with, so the industry may well be better off with the inherent instability and inefficiency of a multitude of servers.

And let's face it, the survival of these services depends on ineffectively policing the pirating of recent materials. I'd be surprised if any of these services kept more than 1/10 of 1 percent of their paying base if they magically removed all recent copyrighted movies, TV shows, books and music.

Dotcom's new site is still looking for hosting services, which must be outside the US because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Why?

Because the DMCA, as enforced, is titled in favor of copyright holders and not users. We've seen time and time again that content hosters (youtube, etc.) take down content in response to take-down requests from copyright holders even if the content in question does not violate copyright. The content hosters do this to guarantee their safety under the DMCA's safe-harbor provision. And in practice, the copyright holders face no penalty for issuing false take-down requests. None of this is helpful to users of file-sharing sites and user-generated content sites.

Um isnt it purjory to file a false DMCA take down notice?

google VenomFangX apologises to the internet for a hilarious video of one such case.

I agree that the takedown of Megaupload was not done appropriately; and I acknowlede that there are many legitamate uses for data locker services. However, this seems very clearly to be embracing pirate users.

Were I looking for a service to backup my own legitamate personal or business files, or to do any sharing of such files, I would not even consider any offering from Mr. Dotcom.

It is embracing 'pirate users.' It's also embracing users that want privacy.

Tom West wrote:

Call me cynical, but I'd wager a fair bit of money that the vast majority of files found on services like this would be within the copyright of what almost anyone would consider acceptable (say, 20 years), and that complaints about copyright overreach (which is a very real phenomena) mostly harbor around resentment for the difficulty in pirating such materials rather than any deep concern that 70 year old works are not being put in the public domain.

In other words, I suspect most complaints are that people are having difficulty pirating recent materials for free. The rest of the concerns (lack of money to artists, unreasonable copyright extensions, etc.) are, for most (but not all), simply a story that people tell themselves in order to feel that they're "not a bad person" for pirating other people's work.

It's not the piracy that drives me crazy - it's the "I'm not stealing!" whining that accompanies it...

Copyright infringement is not stealing, and the system has shown utter disrespect for the citizens, so why should the citizens show any respect for the system? For many US citizens, the public domain has not only failed to expand, it has actually shrank in their lifetime due to the URAA. Furthermore, under current law, these works will not be freely available in their lifetime even if a new law doesn't get lobbied in.

Except it was screamingly clear that Megaupload prospered by adhering to what they felt was the absolutely least compliance they could get away with,

No, it's not. That's part of the whole debate, because there is significant evidence that your assertion is wrong. The main recording industry group IFPI had their 2011 confidential report leaked, and it detailed their strategy as well as included statistics. Take a look at the graph showing percentage of infringing content found on various filelocker sites, and then realize that Megaupload was far, far bigger then any other yet only accounted for a tiny percentage. That graph paints an interesting picture of who had at least a somewhat serious takedown policy and who didn't. Rapidshare and Mediafire are also old, large sites that have clear policies and have claimed that only a small percentage of files are infringing. The IFPI report definitely at least makes this a reasonable question Tom West.

Even if you were correct, that still doesn't change the strategic position I outlined. As a single central and popular service, with servers hosted in a traditional manner and under US jurisdiction, Megaupload could be easily pressured to further improve their takedown policies over time. History is rife with examples of fledgling industries starting out heavily in gray areas of law but then becoming legitimate over time. You want an example? Hollywood.

Quote:

so the industry may well be better off with the inherent instability and inefficiency of a multitude of servers.

But I don't see how there is any such thing. Sure, there will be a temporary period of disruption, but "inherent"? Far from being inherent there appear to be plenty of means, with a bit more upfront work, to make some tweaks and come back stronger then ever even ignoring more radical systems like Freenet or Tor. But those too lurk in the background.

Quote:

And let's face it, the survival of these services depends on ineffectively policing the pirating of recent materials.

Again, you're making that naked assertion, but you aren't providing anything to back it up. There seems to be significant variation between services as well, so I don't see how, at the least, you're justified in lumping them all together.

For many US citizens, the public domain has not only failed to expand, it has actually shrank in their lifetime due to the URAA. Furthermore, under current law, these works will not be freely available in their lifetime even if a new law doesn't get lobbied in.

I don't disagree with you about copyright overreach, etc.

However, I'll ask honestly - If the system was "fair" and had a copyright of say 20 years, do you really think there'd be a strong difference in piracy rates?

I can accept that a significant segment of people will use other people's work without compensation if they think the can get away with it - heck, there's a decent sized subset of that group that will walk off with anything they can if they think they'll get away with it as well.

It's the "I'm not a bad person, therefor anything I do is right" that's annoying.

I can accept that a significant segment of people will use other people's work without compensation if they think the can get away with it - heck, there's a decent sized subset of that group that will walk off with anything they can if they think they'll get away with it as well.

I too am a subscriber of the notion that nothing good ever comes from piracy, everyone who does it would just as easily steal something physical if they could, and that 'many people' (wink wink, nudge nudge) who do it are bad people who are inclined to do bad things.

Really, it's just common sense that if you steal on a computer, you would probably steal in real life too because your a dirty pirate who thinks that the life is getting away without compensating someone for their work.

The IFPI report definitely at least makes this a reasonable question Tom West.

It does, and tangible evidence will probably only come once we see the Megaupload trial. However, I have to say, that without even meaning to find pirated materials, I've probably seen a 100 copyrighted material links to file-locker sites to every one personal material. One catch, most of these are smaller organizations that will never issue a copyright takedown, but they're pirated just the same.

xoa wrote:

But I don't see how there is any such thing. Sure, there will be a temporary period of disruption, but "inherent"? Far from being inherent there appear to be plenty of means, with a bit more upfront work, to make some tweaks and come back stronger then ever even ignoring more radical systems like Freenet or Tor. But those too lurk in the background.

The danger is that a centralized, well-known repository that is "getting away with it" really does (1) attract a lot of casual users who might otherwise purchase stuff and (2) incites a "only suckers don't steal" mentality among the general populace. You can already find that attitude among a lot of youth, nicely framed by the "I just spent $800 on this computer, and now they expect me to pay for my movies as well?"

Quote:

And let's face it, the survival of these services depends on ineffectively policing the pirating of recent materials.

Again, you're making that naked assertion, but you aren't providing anything to back it up. [/quote]

Agreed, it's an assertion. I'd also assert that the person in the alley way who offers to sell you an iPhone for $50 probably didn't acquire it through legitimate channels. I *could* be wrong, but I really, really doubt it.

However, let me ask you. What percentage of the files on MegaUpload do *you* believe were recent materials (say less than 20 years old) uploaded by someone who did not have the right to do so? Movies, software, books, magazines, music, TV shows, videos, etc. I really am curious.

Then, what percent of users who purchased memberships to *you* believe downloaded no copyrighted materials?

However, I'll ask honestly - If the system was "fair" and had a copyright of say 20 years, do you really think there'd be a strong difference in piracy rates?

I can accept that a significant segment of people will use other people's work without compensation if they think the can get away with it - heck, there's a decent sized subset of that group that will walk off with anything they can if they think they'll get away with it as well.

It's the "I'm not a bad person, therefor anything I do is right" that's annoying.

First of all, the rate of infringement doesn't matter at all. What matters is the rate that people buy through legal channels. I think in order to make a difference, there would have be a culture of mutual respect. Shortening copyright to 20 years by itself wouldn't be enough to do that, especially since they've earned a lot of disdain over the last century. More things that would help would to be to quit using propaganda terms like 'piracy' and 'theft,' to quit negotiating secret treaties, and to allow countries greater independence in setting their own laws and enforcement (so, we would need to end the Special 301 watch list).

I think yet another thing that would help a lot in building a culture of respect would be if rightsholders quit spreading the idea that copyright is about them, especially since, more and more, the ability to exert actual control will undeniably dissipate. Copyright is about the public. The public cedes part of the right to freely copy and enjoy works to rightsholders for a short time, and hopefully gets more works to enjoy out of the system by doing so. However, this would also lead to people questioning whether or not this system actually accomplishes those goals, and would lead to people like myself concluding that abolition is the responsible choice.

It does, and tangible evidence will probably only come once we see the Megaupload trial. However, I have to say, that without even meaning to find pirated materials, I've probably seen a 100 copyrighted material links to file-locker sites to every one personal material. One catch, most of these are smaller organizations that will never issue a copyright takedown, but they're pirated just the same.

Personal material is just that, personal. It would make sense that you are less likely to see it.

Quote:

The danger is that a centralized, well-known repository that is "getting away with it" really does (1) attract a lot of casual users who might otherwise purchase stuff and (2) incites a "only suckers don't seal" mentality among the general populace. You can already find that attitude among a lot of youth, nicely framed by the "I just spent $800 on this computer, and now they expect me to pay for my movies as well?"

Your argument only makes sense in a pre-Google world. MU wasn't searchable, so it's about as difficult to use 10 filehosts now as it was to use 2 then.

Quote:

However, let me ask you. What percentage of the files on MegaUpload do *you* believe were recent materials (say less than 20 years old) uploaded by someone who did not have the right to do so? Movies, software, books, magazines, music, TV shows, videos, etc. I really am curious.

It'd be difficult to make such an assertion, and a lot would depend upon how you count it. Number of files would probably be drastically different than the percentage of storage used and the percentage of traffic. Also, a significant amount of traffic probably fell into gray areas. For example, there was a lot of fansubbed anime on these sites, and a reasonable legal means for this content was often unavailable, particularly in the past.

Quote:

Then, what percent of users who purchased memberships to *you* believe downloaded no copyrighted materials?

[/quote][/quote]First of all, there is nothing illegal about downloading copyrighted materials. An Ubuntu ISO fits the bill of copyrighted material, after all. And you condition of 'no' downloading is quite a high bar. If someone bought an account, and 99% of their traffic was legit, the 1% of non-legit material would make them fail your test. The real question, is whether those who purchased memberships did so primarily for the purposes of infringement or for legal means.